As for equality and marriage, let's start with this. Can you name me a society, present or past, that has not places limits or restrictions (made unequal in other words) on the practice of marriage? Limits regarding age, number, bloodline or sex?

In your lifetime, Jerry Lew Lewis married his 13 year old cousin and Loretta Lynn married at the same age.

You can look back on the old thread -- way back on July 21st and 22nd --

Except those weren't real concerns, they basically boiled down to discomfort, or your old "status quo" argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500

As for equality and marriage, let's start with this. Can you name me a society, present or past, that has not places limits or restrictions (made unequal in other words) on the practice of marriage? Limits regarding age, number, bloodline or sex?

Can you name me one society, present or past that hasn't at one time in their history evolved or changed their marriage practices?

Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,269

Local Time: 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500

You can look back on the old thread -- way back on July 21st and 22nd -- as well as the question I'm about to ask Martha, to see negative impacts I can see. And a thread on equality vs liberty would make an interesting topic IMO.

Yes, and as I recall, we came in and gave responses as to why we think (know?) your arguments are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500

As for equality and marriage, let's start with this. Can you name me a society, present or past, that has not places limits or restrictions (made unequal in other words) on the practice of marriage? Limits regarding age, number, bloodline or sex?

Sigh. Here we go again...

There are LOGICAL reasons behind the first three reasons. People have to be of legal age lest there be any chance of abuse and unreasonable control over the person of lower age. Number, likely the same reason, though, as we here have pointed out (and as a fellow religious poster, Sean, has noted), the Bible has multiple stories about relationships where there are more than two people involved. And bloodline, there is a fear of disease and deformity. However, apparently closely related people can still run off and get married in this country! I don't see the anti-same sex marriage people making an equally big demand for constitutional amendments banning incestouous relationships.

Though, as I noted in the last thread, I'm fine with polygamy being legal, as long as everyone's of legal age and consenting. And once more, you can CHOOSE to be polygamous, you aren't born polygamous. Which is why the comparison isn't quite the same.

And yeah, plenty of societies frown upon members of the same sex getting married. The problem there is, there's absolutely no logical reason why.

I present you this scenario:

Two men have been in a committed, monogamous relationship for, say, 10 years. They love each other deeply, as much as a straight couple would. They want to live together and be happy together, take care of each other, be able to visit each other in the hospital should one get sick, maybe even adopt children someday. So they wish to have a wedding ceremony, to make their relationship official.

Why do you think they don't deserve the right to do that, even with all the proof of how committed they are to each other right there, plain for anyone to see? Why do you think they should be denied the same opportunities and rights with love that you get? If you truly don't have an issue with gay people, if it's not the fact that it's two men in this scenario that's bothering you, then what exactly is the actual problem you see here?

I really would like you to answer this. Please, please, PLEASE answer this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Likely Mary was about the same age when she gave birth to Jesus.

So is God a statuatoru rapist?

I mean, our only guide is history, right?

Statutory rapist and promoter of adultery, apparently, 'cause Mary was kind of already taken when God got her pregnant.

But hey, it's in the Bible, and the kid grew up to be our savior, so I guess we can look the other way on his sketchy beginnings, then.

Oh and for the guy who claims that giving gay people the right to marriage is opening Pandora's box...
Gay Marriage has been legal here for 10 years, and yet polygamy is still outlawed. As is marrying a child or anything else that sick people CHOOSE to want. The difference? You don't choose to be gay. You just are. It's not a sick urge you CHOOSE to act up on, instead of seeking help. Maybe it'd help you to come over here and see what society is like for tolerant people.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by GraceRyan

And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.

Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...

Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,269

Local Time: 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

After seeing this picture so many times I can't help but wonder....

What would that Oreo taste like? It looks frickin' delicious!!!!!

This.

Also, yeah, same here in my state. Gay marriage has been legal here for, what's it been, three years now? And somehow, my state hasn't imploded or collapsed or whatever. We're doing about as good or bad as we always have. Hm.

It's tough for religious folks to come to terms with anything sexual. It's no surprise that most cannot support SSM, when they find the vagina a thing of disgust. When your gods/prophets all have to come from a virgin mother, and any sort of women that has either shown any form of power sexually or the idea of them sleeping with multiple partners is usually a call for death or in our current situation now, stronger laws against their odies....

It's not surprising they're also this fearful of the feelings two men/women have for each other.

As for equality and marriage, let's start with this. Can you name me a society, present or past, that has not places limits or restrictions (made unequal in other words) on the practice of marriage? Limits regarding age, number, bloodline or sex?

So, the slippery slope? You believe that if gay marriage is legalized, the floodgates will open?

Look, I get it. You envision a future where people start making the argument that polygamy should be legal because, scientifically, mammals are not meant to have only one sexual partner.

But there are practical reasons not to have polygamy, reasons that go well beyond anything made in the arguments against same-sex marriage. Marriage is, legally, a lot about combining assets, and polygamy would actually introduce true redefining of the legal action. Same-sex marriage applies to none of that. Frankly, I think you are too smart not to know the difference, so this argument is disappointing.

He'd already brought up polygamy before (a few months ago, if I recall correctly), and did not choose to address the rightfully angry comments and questions that came in response (again, unless I'm mis-remembering).

And that's kind of what made me start wondering if he was just trying to rile people up.

As for that Oreo, it would taste like a big mouthful of lard with a little chocolate mixed in. That's too much filling.

Martha. As it's one against everyone maybe you'll indulge me and answer a question or two for me.

Anytime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500

Would you support your mayor if he or she used the power of government to keep Chick-fil-a from opening a franchise in your bankrupt California town (I'm assuming) regardless of the fact that they would bring jobs and tax revenues?

My town has a balanced budget, keeps its parks tidy, fills its potholes, has a police force that doesn't shoot unarmed citizens, and respects the citizens who are still learning English, thanks for asking.

But I would absolutely NOT support any city official who tried to stop a business from opening in my city simply because he didn't like the business's political views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500

Are the residents of your town that supported Prop 8 to maintain marriage as one man and one woman any less civic-minded or respectable citizens of California because of their position on that issue?

No. They can be very responsible citizens. I think they tend to succumb to the fear campaigns launched by their church and party. It's a national trend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by INDY500

As you have stated previously that opposition to same-sex marriage is analogous to anti-miscegenation laws that barred blacks and whites from marrying; what tolerance should the state of California have (and what do you personally have) for citizens, churches or business owners that have a biblical or traditional view of marriage and continue to express that view publicly or politically?

Expressing a view, and acting on that view, are two different things. A business owner can have all the Biblical views he wants. Hell, he can even believe in the Biblical edict that the rape victim must marry the rapist. Acting on those beliefs, trying to legislate the lives of strangers based on those beliefs is a whole different story. So, no, my state is not a theocracy; there is no basis for legislating based on Biblical principles.

Personally, I feel that same way. An individual can believe whatever Biblical principals he wants, and I can choose not to be friends with a person who thinks that his Bible trumps my Constitution.

Same deal with churches; they are protected by the very Constitution they choose to ignore.

A personal question for you, INDY; your aside about the solvency of my town, along with other little remarks you've made, and the manner in which they were made, males me wonder. Do you affect this nastiness as an internet persona, or are you that nasty in person as well? And please don't blame the liberals for this. We have nothing to do with your word choice or sentence structure.

Expressing a view, and acting on that view, are two different things. A business owner can have all the Biblical views he wants. Hell, he can even believe in the Biblical edict that the rape victim must marry the rapist. Acting on those beliefs, trying to legislate the lives of strangers based on those beliefs is a whole different story.

Yes. Or, as it appears to be the case with Sad Chicken With Pickles, donating money to organizations who are trying to legislate or control the lives of strangers.

I say "appears" because while I saw a chart on Facebook about the scary places the company donated money, I haven't seen a source other than the chart.